P Pa ap pe er rs s o on n T Tr ra an ns sl la at ti io on n T Th he eo or ry y a an nd d P Pr ra ac ct ti ic ce e

T Tr ra an ns sl la at ti io on n T Th he eo or ry y a an nd d t th he e T Tr ra an ns sl la at ti io on n
C Cu ur rr ri ic cu ul lu um m
( (T Te ex xt tu ua al lR Re es se ea ar rc ch h a an nd d A Ap pp pl li ic ca at ti io on ns s) )
Aziz Elmouloudi Belhaaj, Ph. D
(*)

G Ge en ne er ra al l I In nt tr ro od du uc ct ti io on n: :
Successful translating involves one of the
most complex intellectual challenges known to
mankind. Moreover, in our present world, the need
for extensive, accurate and effective
communication between those using different
languages gives the translator a position of new
and strategic importance.
(E. Nida 1964 : 155)
Despite the very significant advances made in General Translation Theory * and the
unprecedented explosion in translation activity, translation didactics and research in the
Arab world still occupies a relatively marginal place in the educational curriculum. The
debate on this crucial applied field of study has remained scarce and meager, and few or
no initiatives have been taken in Arab institutes or universities to train and graduate
competent translators or interpreters to assume their strategic roles in a world of massive
multilingual, multicultural communication. The hesitancy, even reluctance to set up
formal courses, or establish full-fledged academic translation programs has undoubtedly
been motivated by a number of factors such as the following:

(*)
Umm Al-Qura University,
Makkah Al-Mukarramah

(a) The highly complex nature of the translation process, and the lack of
knowledge about this intellectual, skill-based and creative activity par-
excellence,
(b) The multidisciplinary * nature of translation as a humanistic endeavour,
involving different types of communication, and being governed by a
variety of linguistic, social, psychological, philosophical and cultural
factors,
(c) the pedagogical uncertainty as to what to teach and how to teach it, which is
caused by the complexity and variety of tasks involved, and the breadth of
knowledges and competencies required. The variability and
unpredictability of the translation task makes it difficult to work out any
one universal, generally-applicable didactic methodology,
(d) the scattered nature of the literature across a large number of languages
constitutes real obstacles in the way of the Arab translation teacher and
researcher. Furthermore, the multiplicity of the theoretical views and
approaches advanced within the field and the lack of consensus among
translation and language theorists, make it difficult to adopt some common
theoretical ground for the investigation of the translation phenomenon,
(e) the long-standing skepticism vis-a-vis translation as a relatively
autonomous field of study which has its own objectives, and scientific
methodology. This state of affairs has for a long time reinforced views on
the tentative character of the translation task, and the relative and
probabilistic nature of translation performance
(f) the lack of awareness of the crucial, even dangerous role of translation in a
world marked by a rapid pace of economic, scientific and technological
growth; and where cross-cultural communication and acquisition of
information and knowledge of all types have, more than ever, come to
mean power, development, security, even survival.
The development of the Linguistic sciences, however, as well as other related fields
such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, communication theory and information
science, has effectively contributed to the rise of the science of translation *. This made it
possible to challenge the practitioner argument that translators are born not made , and
the age-old dictum that the best way to learn how to translate is to translate . Translation
reality may force us into the belief that this discipline, at least in some of its genres,
remains an art based predominantly on the translators intuition and practical experience.
Yes, it has also become possible to rationalize * the translational task, and to accurately
describe the process in all its factors and variables. The findings of translation theory have
provided the translation student, teacher and researcher with considerable descriptive * and
explanatory * information about the translation process which made it possible to
systematize * translation didactics.
The present research project is a series of papers which are meant to investigate the
various theoretical an applied aspects of translation as an academic discipline. The endeavour
is based on the belief that translation can be taught and that competent translators can be
made . The knowledge of the factors, tasks, competencies as well as the limitations and
problems of the translation operation can be determined, explained and communicated
with considerable systematization and scentific rigor. Specifically the General study
addresses the following major issues :
(a) an analysis and discussion of translation theory, indicating what it can
contribute to translation practice. Within this context, aspects of the content
of a pedagogical, multidisciplinary model of General Translation Theory are
suggested by the investigator for the discussion. (See papers on :
Translation Theory and the Translation Curriculum: Research an Application
Possibilities. )
(b) a comprehensive analysis of the major constitutive elements, factors, tasks,
required knowledges and competencies as well as the problems of the
Process of translating . This is conducted in relation to an eclectic* model
worked out by the investigator and which may be applicable and in various
degrees to any language-pair.
(c) The model displays the process as the heart and soul of any
translation activity, and whose systematic analysis and thorough
comprehension determines, to a great extent, the scope, content and
methodology of translation didactics. (See: The Process of Translating: Factors,
Tasks and Challenges. );
(d) An analysis of a translation-performance corpus (Arabic/English and
English/Arabic) collected over a period of several semesters of a college
translation course the researcher has been teaching. This Applied Translation
exercise is meant to test a number of hypotheses and inductively determine
some of the most salient procedures and techniques used by the students in
performing their bi-directional translational task. The investigation is also a
multi-level language analysis for the purpose of determining the types of
mistakes and errors made in the process of translation as well as providing
some explanation for their occurrence and indicating their significance and
pedagogical implications. (See: Constrastive Textology and Language Analysis:
An Arabic-English Corpus ).
Translation, like any other young scientific discipline, requires its own metalanguage*
or subject matter related Terminology* which the discipline uses to describe, define and
explain its own concepts, objectives and methodologies. In this context, we have worked
out a multilingual* glossary of relevant terms. The list includes terms actually used in the
test of the present research.
The selection for the present investigation of specific theoretical issues and practical
tasks, the suggestion of models and the adoption of particular organization and
presentation steps are based on a comprehensive analysis of translation literature published
mainly in English, French and to some degree in Spanish, German and Arabic. Our choices
are, in the final analysis, motivated by the concern to provide some useful insights and
practical guidance to translators in general and to translation students and teachers in
particular, as to what may constitute a balanced and well-structured framework for a
systematic translation training. The views and analyses included in the study are not
meant to be finite or exhaustive; nor can they claim to be some sort of a panacea to the
many problems of translation. Indeed, such activity remains, in the words of I.A Richards
(1953:250), very probably... the most complex type of event yet produced in the evolution of the
cosmos .








T Tr ra an ns sl la at ti io on n T Th he eo or ry y a an nd d t th he e T Tr ra an ns sl la at ti io on n
C Cu ur rr ri ic cu ul lu um m
( (T Te ex xt tu ua al l R Re es se ea ar rc ch h a an nd d A Ap pp pl li ic ca at ti io on ns s) )

I I. . I In nt tr ro od du uc ct ti io on n
In a previous research paper (translation paper one) we have looked at Translation
Science and the factors and the disciplines which have contributed to its inception and
development. This paved the way for the exploration of the first part of the content of a
Model of General Translation Theory which can be integrated in a syllabus for teaching
translation as an academic discipline. The discussion involved issues such as Translatability
and Untranslatability, Equivalence and the relevance and applicability of aspects of the
Linguistic Science to translation theory and practice, particularly at the word and sentence
levels. The present paper investigates further aspects of the suggested Model of General
Translation Theory and constitutes, as a result, a natural continuation and a complement
to paper one. The focus here, however, is on areas of the linguistic science which are
relevant to translation studies beyond the sentence level. Such areas include Text-linguistics,
Text-pragmatics, Text-typology, Sociolinguistics and Functionalist views of translation. For
purposes of clarification our suggested model of General Translation Theory is
reproduced below. (See figure1).






General Translation Theory

Translatability
Equivalence
Structural Semantics Model
Linguistics and Translation
Case Grammar Model
Text-linguistics
Textual Science and Translation Text-pragmatics
Text-types
Lexicography
Translation Auxiliary Disciplines Lexicology
Terminology Science
Interpreting -- A special kind of Translation
The Process of Translating
Translation Methods, Techniques and Strategies
Translation and Reading Theory
Translation and Writing Theory
Translation and the Cultural Factor
Translation Criticism
Figure 1 : A Didactic Model of General Translation Theory.

I II I G Ge en ne er ra al l T Tr ra an ns sl la at ti io on n T Th he eo or ry y- -- - T Te ex xt tu ua al l i is ss su ue es s
2.1. Text-linguistics and translation

Text-linguistics* is best viewed not as single theory or method, but as a
comprehensive discipline which focuses on the text as an object of study. As such, and
because of the comprehensive nature of the phenomenon text itself, test-linguistics shares
its inquiry interests with other related disciplines such as stylistics, pragmatics,
sociolinguistics and narrative analysis*(1).
As a branch of linguistics, text-linguistics or Textology* only started to develop in the
late sixties, when sentence-linguistics seemed to have reached an impasse (2).
Consequently, the need was felt within linguistic research for some new perspective of
analysis to deal with language beyond the sentence level . This perspective was provided
by the emergence of the new fields of Discourse Analysis * and Text-grammar * or
Text-Linguistics . Such disciplines are said to be guided by the principle known as the
transphrastic textuality hypothesis which postulates (a) the need for characterizing the
linguistic patterns beyond clause or sentence boundaries, (b) the focus on the text as
the area where both linguistic and extra-linguistic elements mutually interact and (c ) the
need to realize and act upon the fact that notions such as phonemicity , grammaticality
and semanticality may just be too narrow and less realistic to capture communicative
events than the notions of text-ness *, texture * or textuality * (3).
Of the central issues investigated by text-linguistics, two are of a direct relevance to
our present discussion : (a) defining the concept of text and (b) identifying the
communicative aspects of a text.
The concept text which constitutes the object and subject-matter of textual science
(and consequently of translational theory) has not been an easy one to define due to its
comprehensive nature and the variety of disciplines that claim interest in it (4). Perhaps
the most relevant definitions to our discussion of translation theory and practice are those
provided by (a) Halliday an Hasan (1976) and (b) de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981).
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 1-2):
the word text is used in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written of whatever
length, that does form a unified whole... A text is a unit of language. It is no a grammatical unit like
a clause or a sentence... A text is best regarded as a semantic unit: a unit not of form but of
meaning .

For de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981:3), a text is defined as :
communiccative occurrence which meets seven standards of Textuality [i.e. cohesion,
coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and intertextuality].
Cohesion and coherence refer to the manner in which the clauses and the
propositions respectively hold together in a text. Intentionality * tells us why the
speaker or writer has produced the text while informativity * and acceptability *
respectively cover what the text tells us and how the receptors of the message take it .
Finally, situationality * deals with the relevance of the text-- what the text is for and
intertextuality * covers the issue of resemblance between a text under consideration
and other texts. If a text fails to meet one of these standards, it is not considered
communicative and is categorized as a non-text (5).
The above theoretical views emphasize, among other things, two aspects of texts
which are crucial to translation as an interlingual activity: (a) the internal grammatical and
semantic structure of texts, which highlights the importance of relational grammar * or
the communicative function of syntax, and (b) the communicative nature of texts (with its
linguistic and social factors) (6).
2.1.1. Cohesion and translation
Newmark (1987:295) writes: the topic of cohesion...has always appeared to be the
most useful constituent of discourse analysis or text-linguistics applicable to translation .
Cohesion essentially covers those relations of meaning which allow the parts of a text to
hang or stick together and consequently to function as a text . These relations are
represented by a number of linguistic devices (lexical, grammatical and other) and are
known as: reference*, substitution*, ellipsis*, conjunction* and lexical cohesion* (7). A detailed
discussion of such cohesive devices* is beyond the scope of the present study. In what
follows, however, we provide a brief introduction of each device.

Reference covers a number of language items namely personals , demonstratives
and comparatives which make reference to other items in the text or discourse where
they are used in order to be semantically interpreted. Textual cohesion in this case is
provided by the continuity of reference through which the same item is used in the text
a second time (8). Generally speaking, reference is either endophoric * (i.e. textual) or
ixophoric * (i.e. situational). Endophoric reference is further subdivided into (a)
anaphoric *, when reference is to the preceding text as in (1) and (2) and (b)
cataphoric *, when reference is to the following text as in (3-8):

(1) The Johnsons have returned. They were in Spain for their vacation
(2) John passed his tests with a distinction. This made his parents happy
(3) They have returned from Spain, the Johnsons
(4) He has blocked their driveway again, that irresponsible neighbour
(5) Here is the news: President Nixon has resigned
(6) He was only 15 years-old when my brother got married
(7) Nobody can believe it. The old man is running for office again
(8) It is the same film as the one we saw on T.V last week
Exophoric reference, on the other hand, covers items which refer to things that are
identified and semantically interpreted in the context of situation as in (9) and (10):
(9) They have to be there immediately
(10) Only a fool would have done that
The reference of items such as they ,, there and that can only be semantically
interpreted in relation to the situation in which the text/discourse is produced, and which
involves crucial elements such as the participants, the time, place, and the subject
discussed.

For the sake of a better view of some of the aspects of the behaviour of reference as
a cohesive device, consider the network of semantic relations which hold between the
underlined linguistic expressions in the following test, as indicated by the encircled
cohesive devices:


within an organization, the participant members will have a certain
number of similar characteristics that they both bring to the organization
or acquire once they are there. These may be termed the structural and
the cultural characteristics. The former relate to the size of organizations,
and age , sex and social background of the individual within them and
factors such as education, training and income; whilst the latter is the
the interpretation and meaning that individuals attach to that structure.
(from: Thomas 1986: 9; also appearing in: Hayward
and Wilcoxon, the Forum, July 1994, p: 22).

Figure 2: An illustration of the cohesive device of reference
The substitution device is a grammatical one. It is a relation in the wording but not
a semantic relationship. It involves the replacement of linguistic items by other items,
often proforms, which are of the same grammatical class (9). the cohesive substitutes
are either nominal verbal or clausal is illustrated in (11-14):

(11) His old car is giving him too much trouble. He must buy a new one
(12) She got a B average in Math and her brother got the same
(13) - Do you think Peter owns a car? -I think everybody in that family does
(14) - Is everybody ready to go? - It seems so
Like substitution, ellipsis is a grammatical relationship. It involves omitting a linguistic
expression and not replacing it by anything-- a case of zero substitution whereby
something is left unsaid but is understood nevertheless (10), as illustrated in (15-18):
(15) I am happy if you are
(16) George was angry, and Bob certainly seemed so
(17) - Have you been sleeping? _ Yes I have
(18) There are three extra pairs of shoes. You can take any
Conjunction is a different type of cohesive relations. It is not simply anaphoric ,
rather it establishes relationships between parts of the text such as sentences, clauses and
paragraphs through the use of formal markers. Unlike reference, substitution and ellipsis,
conjuctions are not primarily meant to be devices that instruct the reader to supply some
missing information by reaching out into the preceding or following text . The cohesive
function of conjunctions is to specify to the reader the systematic connection between what
has already been established in the text and what is about to be introduced in it (11).
Conjunctions express a number of semantic relations (i.e. additive, adversative, causal,
temporal, and continuative) as illustrated in examples (19-23):
(19) He bought roses and tulips
(20) They tried hard but they failed
(21) The taxi was late so he missed flight to London
(22) He had lunch with his son, after that he went to the office
(23) You neednt feel sorry. after all, nobody could have prevented it.
The selection of vocabulary items can be used to achieve a cohesive effect , that is
of establishing relations within a text or discourse. This is the case of lexical cohesion which
is generally divided into two categories: reiteration* and collocation*. While Collocation
involves lexical items which are associated because they regularly co-occur as in
illustrated in (24), reiteration involves the repetition of an earlier item (i.e. the same word,
a synonym or near-synonym, a superordinate or a general word) as illustrated in
examples (25) and (26 a,b,c,d):
(24) He brought a variety of fruit-- bananas, apples, oranges etc.
(25) He drank coffee after coffee
(26) The boy is climbing that tree
(a) the boy is going to fall if he doesnt care
(b) The lads going to fall if doesnt take care
(c ) the childs going to fall if he doesnt take care
(d) the idiots going to fall if he doesnt take car (12).
The textual standard of cohesion , as just discussed, indicates all means of
indicationg text surface relations or surface dependencies which provide the essential
signals for sorting out meanings and uses . Surface or grammatical dependencies, however,
may give rise to ambiguity and may not be enough means for efficient communication .
This creates the need for an interaction between cohesion and the other standards of
textuality , particularly the standard of coherence (13).

2.1.2. Coherence and translation
Unlike cohesion which involves interrelatedness or mutual connection of elements
of the surface text by lexical and syntactic means, coherence involves the conceptual
dependencies in the textual world . Both standards share the function of creating sequences
of meanings which bind the text together . In the case of coherence, textual connectedness
involves concepts and relations , the propositional structures which underlie
and are realized by the surface test (14). coherence theorists argue that a text must be viewed
as a human activity whose sense is derived from an interaction between the listeners or
readers cognitive processes and their background linguistic knowledge , their prior
knowledge of the world or memory schemata , and the knowledge presented by the text
itself (15).
Cohesion and Coherence, the two major linguistic criteria of textuality, may be best
viewed as mutually dependent aspects of a text . But they must not necessarily be
confused or conflated having to do with two different types of connectivity; and a text
need not necessarily be coherent in order to be cohesive (16). In this light, we tend to
subscribe to the hypothesis that texture is realized not so much by the presence in a text
of cohesive ties as by the readers ability to recognize underlying semantic relations which
establish continuity of sense (17). While cohesion is an objective * and variable * being
dependent on the intelligibility of the text to the reader and his evaluation of it (18). The
value of cohesive ties , consequently, may be best viewed to reside in the extent to which
they are used to determine and correctly interpret the conceptual relations underlying a
text (19). While the same logical relationship may be expressed by different surface
connective devices e.g. the relation of contrast * which can be expressed by both the
conjunctions but and however ), one and the same surface text cohesive device, may
be used to express different underlying semantic or logical * relations (e.g., the
conjuncion therefore may indicate either reason or consequence). In situations such as
this one, the reader is called upon to perceive the correct logical relationship in order for
the text to cohere or make sense to him (20).
The analysis and comprehension of a SLT, as the argument generally goes, relies less
on cohesion than on coherence-- the network of logical relationships which provide the
text with its underlying sense continuity *. This state of affairs is highlighted by the fact
that speakers of different languages are likely to think and arrange their ideas in different
ways depending on the cultural logical and rhetorical habits or conventions of
their specific languages. For the purpose of illustration, consider the types of logical
relationships involved in the following text:

Evidence*
Contrast
Evidence
Parallel idea
Contrast
Exemplification
Related idea
Amplification*




Contrast

Related idea

Illustration*

Summary



















Each civilization is born, it culminates, and it decays.
There is a widespread testimony that this ominous
fact is due to inherent biological defects in the
crowded life of cities. Now, slowly and at first faintly,
an opposite tendency is showing itself. Better roads
and better vehicles at first induced the wealthier
classes to live on the outskirts of the cities. The urgent
need for defense had also vanished. This tendency is
now spreading rapidly downwards. But a new set
of conditions is just showing itself. Up to the
present time, throughout the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, this new tendency placed the
home in the immediate suburbs, but concent-trated
manufacturing activity, business relations,
government, and pleasure in the centres of the cities.
Apart from the care of children and periods of rest,
active lives were spent in the cities . In some ways the
concentration of such activities was even more more
emhasized, and the homes were pushed out-wards
even at the cost of the discomfort of com-muting long
distances . But if we examine the trend of technology
during the past decades, the reasons for this
concentration are largely disappearing. Still more, the
reasons for the choice of sites are also altering.
Mechanical power can be transmitted for hundreds of
miles, and men can communicate almost
instantaneously by telephone. The chiefs of great
organizations can be transported by airplanes.
Theaters can present plays in every village, and
speeches can be broadcast. Almost every reason for
the growth of cities, concurrent with the growth of
civilization, has been profoundly modified. (21).

Figure 3. Logical relationships and text coherence.
A text, such as the above, may involve some overt cohesive markers of coherence
such as now , but , up to the present time , at first apart from still more . The
task of the reader/translator, however, may be more involved when the underlying
conceptual relationships are not indicated by any obvious graphic links . Consider the
following Spanish example and its English renderings:

(27) Nada temo, estando aqui vosotros
(Lit. nothing I fear, you being here
= I fear nothing, you being here )

There are at least three different semantic or logical relations underlying the Spanish
text: (a) condition (= I fear nothing if you are here), (b) causality (= I fear nothing since you
are here) and (c) temporality (= I fear nothing as long as you are here). The Spanish text
does not display any surface text markers of coherence (in contrast, for instance, to a text
in Arabic which relies heavily on surface structure connectivity) (22). All is left to the
interpretation and evaluation of the reader. For the text to cohere or make sense to him,
he must recognize the specific underlying semantic relation which is appropriate to the
context of situation in which the text is produced. This is akin to analyzing the text as a
communicative occurrence , a performance product , that is with relevance to the factors
of the communication situation which is the domain of Text-pragmatics* (23).
2.2. Text-pragmatics and translation
The study of the communicative aspects of texts has been the interest of linguists,
sociolinguists and philosophers alike (24). Texts have been investigated primarily in terms
of their thematic * and functional/pragmatic dimensions. The study of the thematic
communicative dimension has encompassed. a number of issues such as the content of the
message , the topic or topics dealt with , the presentation of the subject matter and the
means of achieving semantic cohesion and coherence . The functional dimension involves,
among other things, an investigation of the function or functions (both primary and
secondary) of a text. The notion of communicative functions (a continental creation), was
subsequently borrowed, modified and referred to as the illocutionary dimension of texts
by the American pragmaticists or speech act theorists such as Austin, searle and others
(25).

We have touched upon some aspects of the thematic dimension of texts in parts
(2.1.1. and 2.1.2.). Aspects of the functional dimension are discussed under part (2.3.1).
Next, however, we investigate some issues of the pragmatic dimension of texts as
deemed relevant to translation theory and practice.
The pragmatic dimension of texts is said to involve a number of communicative
factors such as (a) the type of addressers and addressees involved, (b) the type of personal
relationship betwwen the Sender and the receptor audience (i.e. being on equal or different
footing), (c ) the intention of the author, (i.e. his plan to describe, comment, teach, motivate,
deceive, influence, criticize, etc.), (d) the communicative presupposition implied by the
author and the receptors interpretation ability (i.e. the relative level of linguistic and
extralinguistic* knowledge shared by the sender and the receptors, which helps in text
comprehension), (e) the role of the context in the authors production of the text and the
receptors comprehension and reaction to the message, and (f) the type of action or acts
performed through the use of language (26).
The pragmatic approach to texts shares some features in common with semantic
models such as the functionalist* one, for example (see part 2.3.1.). Pragmatics, however, is
singled out by its treatment of language as a mode of action (i.e. the etymological sense
of the term being the study of action or doing ). It came to be viewed as a theory of
social pragmatics , or theory of speech acts which involves saying as doing within the
framework of social institutions and conventions (27). This new shift in perspective in the
study of language and meaning came as a result of the dissatisfaction with the descriptive
fallacy * or the concentration on the notion of referential meaning in traditional
semantics, and the emphasis placed on declaratives * and truth-conditional meanings
by the theories of logic and sense relations (28).
According to the pragmatic approach, a distinction is made between (a) the
locutionary* meaning of utterances which is roughly the cognitive or referential meaning
conveyed by such utterances, (b) the illocutionary force* of utterances-- their
communicative force or the acts they perform in social reality, and (c ) the
perlocutionary* effect-- the effect produced by utterances on the hearer, and the extent to
which they function to modify his state of mind, knowledge or attitude . The locutionary
meaning, illocutionary act and perlocutionary effect constitute together what is referred to
as Speech Acts* (29).
The speech act theory * bears directly on the work of a translator. Translation is
better viewed as the rendering of one discourse into another discourse . Consequently, the
proper comprehension of a SLT should not take place at the mere declarative (i.e.
lexical, syntactic..) and structural (i.e. compositional features and information clusters,
etc.) but also, and more importantly, at the situational and intentional levels which
better display the essentially pragmatic nature of language (30). The function that
utterances or sentences perform may be only indirectly related to their surface ,
conceptual or truth-conditional meanings. They may perform a variety of speech
acts. Consider the following examples:
(28) Nurse to visitors : Im afraid its Peters bed time now , Mr.
and Mrs. Johnson .
(29) Customer in a restaurant : waiter ! there is a fly in my soup
(30) Student to roommates: somebody has broken the space-bar on
my typewriter
(31) Speaker on political issue: is it right to condone thuggery?
(32) Father to reckless son: is that your new coat on the ground?
In terms of their conceptual meaning utterances (28), (29) and (30) are viewed as
declarative sentences which perform their typical traditional act of asserting whose sole
purpose is the description of some state of affairs. When considered in terms of their social
reality, the reality of everyday usage , however, these utterances take on the force of a
number of different speech acts. Utterance (28), while it is first interpreted as an act of
informing (what may be considered its direct illocution *), it may also be interpreted
as acts of apologizing and requesting (the indirect illocutions * of the utterance).
Utterances (29) and (30) are also interpreted as performing the act of informing . In
addition, they acquire the communicative or illocutionary force of complaining ,
requesting , ordering or threatening . Utterance (31) is interrogative and is
consequently linked to the typical traditional linguistic act of asking . In this context,
however, it is interpreted as performing the act of asserting ; an act traditionally
performed by declarative sentences. Similarly, utterance (32) may be interpreted as an act
of asking . But it also performs the acts of asserting , blaming , requesting , or
ordering (31).
For illocutionary acts, to be felicitous * (i.e., to succeed or be carried out
properly ), some conditions must be fulfilled in the situation of the utterance. these are
called speech act conditions or felicity conditions *(32). For the act of naming to
succeed, for example, the thing or person named must not already have a name and the
speaker must have the proper official or legal authority to do so (being a priest, a
judge, a mayor, a governor, etc.). Similarly, for the act of ordering to be felicitous, the
speaker must have authority over or be superior to the listener and the hearer must
be able to carry out the order (i.e. one cannot be ordered to perform something impossible
to do) (33).
A crucial issue to all approaches to textual or discoursal analysis is that of context .
The appropriate interpretation of utterances we make may depend largely on the
pragmatic situation , the contextual information which is predominantly implicit *
(34). It has been argued that for a better account of meaning in language, a marriage of
convenience must be established between semantics and pragmatics (ie., a
complementarist view of meaning analysis in language). while the former alone
accounts for the locutionary aspect of the utterance (i.e. its propositional content), both
models allied will account for the communicative or illocutionary force accompanying the
utterance. But pragmatics, unlike truth-conditional semantics, seems to have more
explanatory power for the pheneomenon of the implicit or presupposed (35).
The notion of implicature * was introduced into linguistics from the philosophy of
language and has been considered one of the most importent ideas in the field. It has
provided significant functional explanations for some linguistic phenomena which have
been considered problematic for formal semantics * such as contradictions , indirect
speech acts * and the interpretation of metaphors (36). Consider the following
examples:
(33) (a) What do you think of John, our neighbour?
(b) Hed share his last crust of bread with you
(34) She is poor but she is honest
(35) (a) How was the movie?
(b) The popcorn was good
(36) (a) The clock is slow
(b) There was a power cut this morning
(37) (a) Visitor: excuse me, do you know where the Ambassador
hotel is?
(b) Passer-by: Oh, sure, I know where it is (and walks away)
(38) (a) Can you tell me the time?
(b) Well, the milkman has come
(39) (a) How is the Canadian economy?
(b) The liberals are still in Power
(40) (a) Traffic Warden to motorist parked on double yellow line:
Is that you car, Sir?
(b) Motorist (looking at the black clouds):
I think its going to rain
(41) John is a tiger
(42) (a) Can George cook?
(b) He can boil water
(43) (a) Dear, could you tell me why our grocery bill is so high these days?
(b) Honey, it is because we are feeding two horses
(44) (a) Personally, I found the concert disgusting
(b) Excuse me. Im sorry to change the subject, but all of the
passengers have deplaned, and I cannot remember what Greg said his
friend is supposed to look like (37).
Looking at some of the examples above, one realizes a clear discrepancy beween
what the sentence says and what the speaker/writer intend. There exists a variable and
unsystematic relationship between the sense of the utterances and their communicative
force (38). Furthermore, there seems to be an ambiguous, even illogical relatedness
between the question and the response in pairs of utterances/ sentences such as (33), (35)
and (37-40). The texts involved in these pairs do not seem to cohere, as there is no
continuity of sense. Grices notion of implicature can help account for such discrepancies
and seemingly illogical propositional relationships.
The hearer is required to make the inferences which the speaker wants him to make
(39). The implied meaning can be signaled conventionally using textual resources which
are customarily used to indicate specific relationships between propositions. Consider, for
instance, the use of the adversative * conjunction but in example (34) above; where,
out of context, a number of propositions may be implicated by the speaker such as (a) it is
unusual for anyone to be both poor and honest and (b) it is surprising that a woman
should be poor and honest (40). There remains, however the issue of how meaning not
conventionally coded in language is signaled by the speaker and interpreted by the
hearer?
The answer for this question is found in the Gricean Cooperative Principle * which
postulates that some aspects of conversational behaviour can only be interpreted and
understood if the participants in the conversation behave cooperatively --if they obeyed a
number of rules or maxims of good conversational behaviour (41). The maxims
constituting the Cooperative Principle are those of (a) quantity * (i.e. the component of
informativeness ) which is to provide the hearer with the right amount of information
required, and no more than is needed, (b) Quality * (i.e. the component of
truthfulness ) which requires the speaker not to say what he believes to be false , or
what he lacks evidence for , (c ) relation * (i.e. the component of relevance ) which is
to observe the subject of conversation, and (d) Manner * (i.e. the component of clarity
or perspicuity ) which is to be brief and orderly in ones conversational
contribution, and not to use language that is obscure and ambiguous (42).
The Gricean maxims can, therefore, explain why utterances we make often seem to
mean more than they say . The parties to a conversation ideally have a common objective of
communication which is realized by means of observing the conversational maxims. If the
speaker, however, violates or flouts one of the maxims, this indicates that he is not
cooperating, or that he wants to convey an implicature (43). Thus examples (33), (35), (36),
(38), (39), and (42) are cases of implicature. Examples (37), (40) and (44), however, are cases
of uncooperativeness. Example (43) can be said to violate the maxim of Quality, and
examples (37) and (42) that of Quantity. Examples (40) and (44), however, violate the
maxim of relation, and examples (33), (36), (176), (38) and (42) can be said to flout the
maxim of Manner.
It is argued that the Theory of Speech Acts complements Grices approach to
meaning as expanded through the issues of conversational implicature and the maxims
of the cooperative principle . Both types of analysis focus on the intended , or
implicit meaning of utterances. The affinity, indeed overlap between the two
approaches is illustrated by the fact that indirect speech acts are viewed as utterances
whose literal by the fact that indirect speech acts are viewed as utterances whose literal
meanings in a conversation are considered contextually inadequate and are, consequently
corrected or repaired by means of a reference . More specifically, it is the violation of
one or the other of the conversational maxims which make utterances have indirect
illocutionary meanings (44).
Textual science, in its test-linguistic and text-pragmatic aspects, stresses the
importance of the theme, function and communicative roles of texts . These very issues are
instrumental in determining text types which a translator needs to recognize in order to
adopt the proper translation procedural behaviour (45).
2.3. Text-types and translation
Text typology is another major concern for textual science and consequently for
translation theory and practice. Texts are best viewed as communicative occurrences, and the
intention or intentions of the author have been viewed to be an integral part of the
communication situation . The author may choose the communicative role of informing,
persuading, influencing or other. This, in turn, helps determine the choice of text type,
textual organization and theme line. For example, in order to inform , the writer (and
consequently the translator) uses a narrative *, expository *, explanatory or
descriptive * text. If, on the other hand, his intention is influencing , he may choose a
hortatory * or supplicatory text. Also, if he intends to perform the function of
proving or convincing , he may best choose an argumentative * text type (46).
Traditionally, text-types have been informally identified on the basis of their
topic , or propositional content . Thus, texts were distinguished as literary, technical,
scientific, etc. Such categorization, however, did not overcome the problem of
definition --what is meant, for example, by scientific , technical , commercial ,
economical , general , poetic , literary etc. This situation is further complicated
by the considerable overlapping that exists between these text-types both at the levels of
content and form (47). Considering the relative inadequacy of text discriminators such
as text content and text formal characteristics, texts came to be best characterized from a
functional* perspective.
2.3.1. Functionalism, translation and text types
The concern in linguistic research (as in most areas of human thought) with the
scientific method which characterized twentieth century scholarchip, led to the argument
that meaning in language should be studied in terms of use , situation or context --
the observable correlates of language behaviour . This marked the birth of the context-
oriented linguistic theories as championed by scholars such as Malinowski (1923), Firth
(1957) and Halliday (1975;1978). Contextualism * came as a reaction to both
structuralist and generative transformational approaches which deal with language
mainly as a static and abstract system rather than as a system of interpersonal
communication . It is well argued that the aim of contextualism is the realization of a
possible intermarriage between the syntactics and the semantics of context; the
attempt to clarify the relationship between linguistic (co-textual, text internal) and
extralinguistic (contextual, text-external) factors towards formulating a theory of
performance linguistics (48). Firths concept of context of situation * which ties linguistic
analysis to the concept of usage is undoubtedly and psychology and sociology.
Sociolinguistics views language as an interpersonal behaviour where meaning is
best approached in the study of language as a form of social interaction. As a result, a
sociolinguistic approach to translation, for example, necessarily focuses on the SLT as a
communicative act-- who said what to whom under what circumstances, for what reasons and
for what purpose? (49). The concern, in other words, of any kind of linguistic analysis is
with meaningful behaviour in society (50). This state of affairs cannot be in any way
avoided because peoples semantic competence is harnessed to various social needs (51). The
value of our linguistic utterances, as a result, remains tied to their functional context . A
sociological view of the translational task, therefore, necessarily implies an analysis and
understanding of the communicative functions * of language. In other words, the proper
interpretation and comprehension of the SLT cannot be materialized without an analysis
of the function of functions which characterize the communication (52).

Of considerable importance for translation theory and practice is the work of scholars
such as Halliday (1973; 1975); Malinowski (1923; 1935) and Firth (1957; 1964; 1968) whose
work is clearly sociological and functionalist in character. Perhaps the most widely
adopted functional theory, and the most applicable to translating is the Prague School
model of language functions as elaborated by Roman Jakobson on the basis of Buhlers
functional linguistic views (53).
According to Jakobsons model (1960: 353-357), the full meaning of a
communicative transaction is not and cannot be supplied by the message alone . It is
rather provided by the total act of communication which involves a number of factors--
a message *, an addresser *, an addressee *, a contact *, a code * and a context *.
Any speech event or act of verbal communication consists of a message sent by an
addresser to an addressee or addressees. The message must be verbalized in the form of a code
(i.e., speech, writing, etc.) which is partially of fully known to addresser and addressee. In
order to make sense the message requires a context (i.e. a topic, subject matter) which is
understood by both sender and receiver of the message. Finally, a contact or channel* (i.e.
visual, electronic, etc..) is needed to allow the addresser and the addressee to enter and
stay in communication (54).
According to Jakobson, each of the six factors involved in the communicative event
determines a distinct functional role in language. In any particular speech event, on of the
factors is dominant and the verbal structure of the message consequently takes the
functional character of that factor. The six functions, as worked out by Buhler and
Jakobson are as follows:
The referential * function (also referred to as informative , representative ,
denotative * or cognitive *) (55) conveys concrete and objective information about
what the message refers to and is considered fundamental to all types of communication.
For translation purposes, standard informative texts include textbooks, newspaper or
periodical articles, memoranda, scientific papers, etc.. (56).

The emotive * or expressive * function shows the relationship between the
message and its emitter. It expresses the latters attitude towards the referent or his
emotional response to a particular situation. Typical expressive texts include: creative
literature--poetry, short stories, novels and plays; authoritative political speeches, legal
documents and philosophical works, etc. (57).
The conative function (also known as the injunctive , imperative ,
vocative *, instrumental , operative and pragmatic function) focuses the
communication on the receiver, addressing either his intelligence or emotional
sensitivity . Typical conative texts include instructions, notices, propagande, publicity
and popular fiction (58).
The poetic * or aesthetic function indicates that the communication is oriented
towards the message which then ceases to be the instrument of communication and becomes
its object (59). It is that function of language which utilizes sound and metaphor in
order to please the senses (60).
The phatic * function serves not to impart any new information, but to establish
and maintain communication. Phaticisms or phatic verbal exchanges (which are
either universal or culture-specific) help keep the social wheels turning smoothly and
to ensure that the contact between the interlocutors is operational (61).
The metalingual * function indicates that the communication is code-oriented. This
glossing function helps make sure that either or both interlocutors use or understand
the same code. It points to a languages ability to explain, name, and criticize its own features
(62).
The foregoing discussion clearly indicates that, unlike traditional approaches which
were inadequate text categorizing tools, functionalism offers a better alternative towards a
precise and unambiguous characterization of text types. This approach looks at texts in
terms of their functional roles in communicative transactions or interactions. Of all the
texts types, the one that tests best the students translational competencies is undoubtedly
the literary text (both poetry and prose). The nature as well as some of the challenges of
the translation of this text-type are discussed next.
2.3.2. On literary translation
Lacesar Stancev (1970:181) wrote:
Traduire cest aimer: aimer la posie, la littrature des autres peuples et les autres peuples
eux-mmes. La connaissance des littratures trangres approche les peuples. Traduire est un art
pineux qui a la noble mission douvrir de nouvelles voies de rapprochement, des voies menant la
paix.
The literature of a people reflects their way of life, their vision of the world and their
cultural values. This highlights, as just pointed out, the importance and nobility ot the
translators task of bringing different peoples together via a mutual knowkedge and
understanding of their literatures, thus opening new paths towards mutual respect and
peace.
Literary translation, however, constitutes a special area of difficulty for both the
student and the professional. Other text-types such as the general pragmatic or LSP
texts are predominantly determined by their propositional content and may, to a great
extent, be interpreted and construed on the sole basis of a semantic analysis (63). Literary
texts, however, display a number of characteristics which make them a special type of
texts:
Literary texts are viewed as being less institutionalized and as adhering
particularly to the norms of semantic, metaphorical and stylistic innovation . Yet in such
texts form or expression is as important as content. Literary writers make a personal usage
of language, inventing metaphors and creating images at will. Such predominant elements
of expression however, have a different distribution in the source and target languages
which makes the task of a translator a creative one as he strives to reproduce a work of art
on both the content and expression levels (64).
Literary texts have a predominant expressive function . The author of creative
literary work expresses his feelings and emotions, his personal perception of reality and
world view. Such factors, it is argued must not be neglected, as it is often the case in
translation work. The receptors of a translation must not only understand but also
feel what is said. A translated poem, for instance, must read like poetry and not like
dull prose (65).
Another characteristic of literary texts is their symbolic * and evocative * power.
Not everything in literary messages in made explicit, and connotation is predominant. The
connotative use of language which is the trade mark of imaginative literature constitutes a
major problem for the translator who has to strive to make much of the implicit explicit. On
this obstacle to interlingual, intercultural transfer potential, Mounin (1963 : 168) writes:
Quand on dit que la traduction est impossible, neuf fois sur dix on pense ces connotations
qui mettent en cause non seulement la possibilit de transfert de civilisation, de vision du
monde vision du monde de langue langue mais finalement dindividu individu mme
lintrieur dune civilisation, dune vision de monde dune langue qui leur sont communes .
Opacity may be considered another characteristic of literary texts. as a result, they are
likely to have multiple interpretations by different readers. For the translator, it becomes a
crucial matter to determine as much as possible the intention or intentions of the original
writer to be able to faithfully reproduce the message.
Literary translation ought to be a personal creative work. A good literary translator is
one who creates some sort of a double original . For that reason, he must himself be an
artist, a man of letters, a creator or one capable of creativity (66). The translator must have
empathy*, or thought communion with the author of the original. This will help the
translator read, understand and appreciate the SLT in all its aesthetic dimensions, what
Jacques Flammand (1963:121) refers to as : la sonorit des mots, le rythme des phrases, le
symbolisme des images, bref, toute la beaut du texte . It is, perhaps, this state of affairs which
lead to the argument that literary translation is more of an art than a craft or a
science , and that it is difficult, if not impossible, to consider the theory of literary
translation separately form the theory of poetic art and hermeneutics (67).

In the light of the facts just outlined, a literacy translator cannot be trained as easily
and as systematically as a translator of informative or vocative text-types. Short of
being a man of letters himself, a literaty translator can best be taught how to strive for
approximate artistic equivalence , how to produce an illusionistic rendition which makes
the reader feel that he is reading the original (68). Perhaps the clich traduttore, traditore
best applies to the translator of imaginative literature. Rabassa (1984:21) eloquently
describes the nature, indeed the dilemma of creative literature translation:
if it is not clearly derivative, it is, then treasonous and even treacherous, for it will be
misleading. If it is too servile to the alien form, then it is guilty of misfeasance rather than
malfeasance, for it has not carried over the natural feel of the original.
The literary text-type is thus distinguished from all other types of texts, particularly
the informative ones which are concerned with those topics of knowledge constituting the
bulk of a translators work. The following figure outlines some of the most salient
characteristics of expressive texts as opposed to the so-called textes utilitaires (i.e.,
informative , pragmatic * or utilitarian * texts). These characteristic features highlight
some of the translators procedural behaviour :
Literary texts General or Utilitarian Texts
(a) Predominantly expressive predominantly informative.
(b) Predominantly connotative predominantly denotative.
(c ) Symbolic and evocative highly explicit, clear and straightforward.
(d) Focus on both form and content focus particularly on content or matter.
or matter as well as manner
(e) Highly subjective* predominantly objective
(f) Allows multiple interpretation allows single interpretation only.
(g) Timeless and universal temporary, may have immediate
utility only.
(h) Distinguished by overall less conscious or concerned with
patterning -- The selection selection or choice and more
and arrangement of linguistic spontaneous .
items, and the use of special devices
to heighten communicative effect
(i) Tendency of literary style to consistent adherence to the
deviate from the norms of the common core of the language.
standard use of language.

Figure 4. Some characteristics of literary and utilitarian texts. (69).
I II II I. . S Su um mm ma at ti io on n
3.1 The present study is a natural sequence for paper one on translation theory and practice
(see general introduction). Further issues of a didactic model of general translation theory
are explored. The discussion focuses on relevant areas beyond the word and sentence
levels.
3.2. The nature , organization and typology of texts are investigated with the goal of
determining some of the ways they can be analyzed, interpreted, and consequently
better translated.
3.3. The approach adopted for the analysis is predominantly functional and sociolinguistic,
one which focuses on the identification of the communicative aspects of texts as
social events-- a line of thought which is much akin to the nature of translation as an
interlingual , intercultural communicative act.
3.4. Text-linguistics whose object of study is the text came to make up for the limitations of
sentence-linguistics and to broaden the scope of linguistic analysis. Several standards
of textuality are identified as useful factors which contribute to a better
understanding of texts and their accurate transfer across languages.
3.5. Of particular interest to the student translator are the standards of cohesion and
coherence which deal with the internal grammatical structures of texts. As a feature
of text or discourse analysis, cohesion covers a number of surface relations or
grammatical dependencies which make a text stick together as a unit . Such
relations are generally represented by linguistic devices known as : reference,
substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion.
3.6. Cognizance of surface dependencies of a text, however, may not be enough to
understand and use the text as an efficient communicative occurance. Thus the need
for other standards of textuality such as coherence . Both cohesion and coherence
function to create textual connectedness. Coherence, however, focuses on the textual
underlying continuity of sense which is a function of the interaction between the
knowledge brought by the text and the readers cognitive and interpretive
abilities, his linguistic knowledge and his memory schemata or prior knowledge
of the world.
3.7. The study of the thematic aspects of texts needs to be supplemented by an
investigation of their functional and pragmatic dimensions. The functional perspective,
which is sociolinguistic in nature, focuses on the functions of language as brought by
the text. Perhaps the most widely known functional theory is that of Roman Jakobson
which maintains that any speech event must involve the presence and interaction of
a number of factors-- a message, an addresser, an addressee, a code, a contact and a context.
The language functions as related to the factors of the act of verbal communication
are the expressive, the emotive, the conative, the poetic, the phatic and the metalingual.
The message takes the functional character of the factor which is dominant in the
particular speech event.
3.8. The pragmatic approach to texts shares a number of features with the functional model.
Pragmatics, however, is distinguished by its view of language as a mode of
action . It came to be treated as a theory of Speech Acts --an investigation of the
type of actions or acts which are performed through the use of language. The
proper understanding and translation of a text must reckon not only with the
declarative and structural levels of textual analysis but also and particularly
with the situational and intentional levels which better express the
communicative force of texts.
3.9. Of particular significance to text analysis for purposes of comprehension and
translation is the notion of implicature (see Grices Cooperative Principle
maxims) which helps provide functional explanation of problematic phenomena
such as implicit or presupposed meaning, contradictions, metaphorical use
language, and indirect Speech Acts .
3.10. The students awareness of the thematic, functional and communicative force of texts
helps him determine the type of text he is dealing with, and consequently to adopt
the proper translational procedure and translation style. Specific text types involve
specific theme lines, and specific linguistic features and structural organizations.
Thus, an argumentative text, for example, must not be construed and translated as a
narrative or a hortatory text.
3.11. Traditionally, texts have been categorized on the basis of their propositional content as
literary, technical, scientific, etc. Functional theories, however, have helped more
accurate criteria of categorization according to which texts are distinguished in terms
of their functional roles in communicative interactions (see 3.7. above).
3.12. One of the most challenging types of texts for the student translator is the literary
genre. Unlike general, progmatic or utilitarian texts, literary texts display a number of
characteristics which make them more difficult to translate. Some of the most salient
of these characteristics include: metaphorical and stylistic innovation, a focus on both
form and content or matter and manner, a predominant use of connotation, the
possibility of multiple interpretation, and the tendency to deviate from the
conventional norms of language use.


I IV V. . E En nd dn no ot te es s
(1) Wakes (1989:458-461); De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981: 14-3O)
(2) The preoccupation whith texts , however, dates back to Antiquity when Marcus
Fabius Quintilian (35-96) worked out, within the context of Rhetoric , his famous
five parts or stages in oration composing and his three types of discourse or
constraints on the types of oratory. The five types are (a) the selection or choice of
subject matter ( inventio ), (b) the ordering or arrangement of the material
( disposito ), (c )the presentation style ( elocution ), (d) the techniques of learning
by rote ( memoria ) and (e) the way of oration delivery ( pronunciato ). The
types , on the other hand, are the politicians deliberative- persuasive , the
attorneys foresnic-defensive and the preachers epideictic-ceremonial
discourse. (Quintilian, institutio oratoria , Guide to Rhetoric , 96 A.D; Hartmann
1980: 10-18).
(3) Hartmann (ibid.: 18)
(4) A text has been defined, for example, as ... a document containing a sample of a
particular variety of language, and serves as the basis for linguistic analysis (Hartmann
and Stork 1972: 236,237); See: Beene et al. (1985: 6-9) for some other definitions of
text .
(5) Bell (1991: 163-174)
(6) De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981:3)
(7) Halliday and Hasan (1976); de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981:48-83); Bell (1991:154-
156); Baker (1992: 180-216)
(8) Halliday and Hasan (ibid.: 31)
(9) Baker (ibid.: 186, 187); Halliday and Hasan (ibid.: 32, 88-141)
(10) Halliday and Hasan (ibid.: 142; 143)
(11) Baker (ibid.: 190,191); Halliday and Hasan (ibid.: 220)
(12) Halliday and Hasan (ibid.: 274-285)
(13) De Beaugrande and Dressler (181: 3,4)
(14) Bell (1991: 164,165)
(15) Beene et al (1985:5); Witte and Faigley (1981: 199)de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981: 4-
7 and 84-112)
(16) The following passage is an example of a cohesive text which may not be said to be
coherent : the quarterback threw the ball toward the tight end. Balls are used in many
sports. Most balls are spheres, but a football is an ellipsoid. The tight end leaped to catch the
ball. (Witte and Faigley 1981:201). For another example of this type, see: Enkvist
(1978b : 110,111). Reproduced in : Baker 1992: 218)
(17) Baker (1992: 219)
(18) Hughes and Duhamel (1962: 19-20); Hoey (1991:12)
(19) Baker (ibid.: 218,219)
(20) Consider the following sentences where the two structure elements but and
however express the same logical relationship of contrast : (a) He attacked the
Senator viciously but he was never called before the committee, (b) the Smiths are taking good
care of their lawn. Their neighbours the Johnsons, however, do not seem to bother.
(21) Some of the most common logical relationships include: interpretation, contrast,
comparison, definition, cause, inference, exemplification, enumeration, reformulation,
summary, conclusion, amplification, evaluation, restatement, result, parallel idea, evidence,
illustration, related idia, specification, etc. (Ding Xin-Shan 1994: 28-30; Quirk 1973: 287-
294): Barnwell 1980: 177-246)
(22) Reiss (1881: 130). See Baker (1992: 217-258) for other examples on text coherence .
(23) Reiss (1976: 333,334); de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981: 11)
(24) See, for example, Dell Hymes (1972; 1974); Pergnier (1981); Austin (1962,1970); Grice
(1975); Searle, Kiefer and Bierwisch (1980); van Dijk (1977a).
(25) Wilss (1982b : 116, 119, 120)
(26) Leech (1981: 320, 321);
(27) Lyons (1981: 175);
(28) Leech (1981: 321); Hurford and Heasley (1983: 233, 240); See also the works of Austin
(1962) and Searle (1969; 1971; 1975).
(29) Austin (1962: 59,60); Leech (1981:321); Hurford and Heasley (1983: 243, 244) Different
classifications of speech acts have been advanced. One of the most common
typologies is perhaps the one that Searle (1969, 1976) worked out on the basis of
Austins (1962) work and which is composed of the following basic categories: (a)
representatives (i.e. asserting, concluding), (b) directives (ordering, requesting),
(c ) commissives (i.e. promising offering, threatening), (d) expressive (i.e.
apologizing, thanking) and (e) declaratives (i.e. naming, firing from a job) (see:
Levinson 1983: 240)
(30) Louw (1985: 104, 107)
(31) Hurford and Heasley (ibid.: 233, 241-243)
(32) Leech (1981: 321, 322); Levinson (1983: 229);
(33) Hurford and Heasley (ibid: 250-256)
(34) Louw (1985: 103); Lyons (1981: 201-219)
(35) Leech (1981: 331)
(36) Levinsion (1983: 97); Lyons (1981: 213)
(37) The examples are adapted respectively from: Lyons (1981: 207); Lyons (ibid: 208);
Baker (1992: 223); Lyons (ibid.: 213); Yule (1985: 101); Levinson (1983: 97); Thomson
(1982: 3); Hurford and Heasley (1983: 281); Lyons (ibid.: 213); Thomson (Ibid: 5; 5; 6).
(38) Leech (1981: 331)
(39) What the speaker implies, however, should not be, as Baker (1992:223) points out,
confused with idiomatic meaning . The latter is conventional and is interpreted on
the basis of a good mastery of the linguistic system, while implicature depends on
the successful interpretation of the speakers implied meaning.
(40) Lyons (1981: 208); Baker (1992: 224)
(41) Grice (1975: 45); Leech (1981: 296, 297, 331)
(42) Grice (ibid.: 45, 46); Hurford and Heasley (1983: 282)
(43) Thomson (1982: 4); Baker (ibid.: 227)
(44) Levinson (1983: 270); Baker (ibid.: 259, end note 2)
(45) E.L. Hohulin (1982: 71, 78, 79)
(46) E.L. Hohulin (ibid.)
(47) Bell (1991: 202, 204); E.L. Hohulin (ibid.: 78, 79); Newmark (1988: 39-44);
(48) Leech (1981: 61, 62); Wilss (1982b : 71)
(49) Nida (1979: 104)
(50) Firth (1968: 146, 147, 161). See also: Malinowski (1923).
(51) Leech (1981: 57)
(52) Nida (ibid.)
(53) Buhler (1934; 1965); Jakobson (1960); Vatcheck (1972)
(54) Jakobson (1960: 353-357)
(55) Buhler (1965; Guiraud (1975); Hawkes (1975;1977); Newmark (1988)
(56) Newmark (1988: 40)
(57) Newmark (ibid.: 39)
(58) Newmark (ibid.: 41)
(59) Guiraud (1975: 5)
(60) Newmark (ibid.: 42)
(61) Hurfor and Heasley (1983: 4,5); Newmark (ibid.: 43)
(62) Newmark (ibid.)
(63) Wilss (1982b : 76)
(64) Wilss (ibid.: 125);
(65) Nida (1974: 25)
(66) Stancev (1970: 180); Etking (1967: 23-30)
(67) Kloepfer (1967: 10); Wilss (1982b : 180)
(68) Levy (1969: 31f); Wilss (ibid.: 71, 77)
(69) Delisle (1982: 29-33); Flammand (1983: 116-120); Newmark (1988: 39,41) and Chapman
(1973: 13-15).

V V. . G Gl lo os ss sa ar ry y
English French Arabic
Acceptability Acceptabilit
,,,.. .,.,,.:
Addressee Allocutaire
,...: .,. _.:
Addresser Locuteur
,.s:: _.:
Adversative Adversatif
_s.:.
Amplification Augmentation- Extension
,.,.; _.,: ....;
Anaphora Anaphore
.,..... ....,
Anaphoric Anaphorique
. _... _...;
Argumentative (text) Texte argumentatif
_.., .
Cataphoric Cataphorique
_.... .. _.,.
Channel Canal
.........
Coherence Cohsion
.,: ...: , _... .... ,
Cohesion (lexical) Cohsion lexicale
_.,.: .,. , _:..: ,
Cohesive device Particule de cohsion
..| ....,.
Code Code
... ,..:.
Cognitive Cognitif (conceptuel)
.. _s.
Collocation Collocation (alliance de mots)
,..:. .,.... .,...:
Communication Communication
_.,:. ,..:.
Communication theory Thorie de communication
_.,:. .,..
Communication act Acte de communication
_... , _... , _...:.
Communicative channel Canal de communication
.... ,..:.
Communicative function Fonction communicative
..,.,. .,..,:.
Conative (function) Fonction conative
..,.,. ...,..,.,
Conjunction Conjonction
,... ..| ,...
Contact Contact, rapport
.. _,..
Context Contexte
.,.. ..,..
Context of Situation Contexte de situation
.,. ,.,: _.:.. ,..
Contextualism Contextualisme
.,.. .,..
Contrast Contraste
_,..:. .,..:
Cooperative Principle Principe de coopration
,.,:. |.,. ,..:.
Denotative Dnotative
_.,.. _... _.,.
Descriptive Descriptif (-ve)
_..,
Descriptive fallacy Principe erron de description
.....: .,..,.
Dialect Dialecte
.,, ... .,..
Direct Speech Act Acte de langage directe
..,: _.s. _...
Discourse Analysis lAnalyse du discours
,... _,..
Eclectic Eclectique
_...:. _.....
Ellipsis Ellipse
_.,. ,:.
Emotive Function Fonction motive
.,..... ..,.,
Empathy Empathie
_..... ..:.
Endophoric Endophorique
_... _.,.
Evidence Preuve-vidence
_.,:. ,..:. _,.,:
Evocative Evocateur
_.., ,.,... :.
Exophoric Exophorique
_,.. _.,.
Evidence Preuve-vidence
_.,:. :. ,.. _,.,:
Evocative Evocateur
_.., ,.,... :.
Exophoric Exophorique
_... _.,.
Explanatory Explicatif
_..: _..
Expository (text) Expositif
_.,.,: _..: _.,..:
Expressive function Fonction expressive
.,,.: ..,.,
Extralinguistic Extralinguistique
.... , ..
Felicitous Heureux, propos
_,.. ,... ..
Felicity conditions Conditions d propos
_.s. _... _., .,.
Formal Semantics Smantique formelle
_.s.. ...... ,..
Functions (of lang.) Fonctions de langue
.... ,...,
Functionalism Fonctionalisme
.... ,..., .,..
General transl. theory Thorie gnrale de traduction
.,.. ..... .,...
Hortatory (text) Exhortatif
_.., _,:. _...
Idiolect Idiolecte
... .,,
Illocutionary Act Acte illocutoire
.... _..
Illocutionary force Force illocutaire
.... ....
Illustration Illustration
_,:. _,.,:
Implicature Implication
... .,.,..:
Implicit Implicit
_.. _,..: ...
Indirect Speech Act Acte de langage indirecte
_... _.s. ..,..
Informativity Informativit
.,.., .,.,.,
Integration Intgration
_..s:. .,.,:. _...
Intentionality Intentionnalit
.... .,....
Intertextuality Intertextualit
..:.
Lexical Semantics Smantique lexicale
.,:... .... .,.,..
Manner (maxim) Maxime de manire
..,.. |.,.
Message Message
.....
Metalanguage Mtalangue
...,. ....
Metalingual (function) Fonction mtalinguistique
...,. .,,... ..,.,.
Monolingual Monolingue
.... _...|
Multidisciplinary Multidisciplinaire
..... ...:. . ...:. ,,..
Multilingual Multilingue
..... ...:.
Narrative Rcit, narration
... ..
Narrative analysis Analyse de rcit
... _,..
Objective Objectif
_.,.,. _:: .
Perlocutionary act Acte perlocutoire
_:.:. _... _... _...
Phatic(function) Fonction phatique
...., ..,., .,..,:. ..,.,
Poetic function Fonction potique
.,.... ..,.,
Pragmatic (text) Texte pragmatique
_... .
Quality (maxim of) Maxime de qualit
.,.,.. |.,.
Quantity (maxim of) Maxime de quantit
_.s. ...:.. |.,.
Rationalize Rationaliser
...,
Reference Rfrence
_,: ....,
Referential meaning Sens rfrentiel
_.,. _... ,.. _...
Reiteration Ritration
s: .,s,:
Relation (maxim of) Maxime de relation
|.,. ....
Relational Grammar Grammaire relationnelle
,... _:....
Rhetorical Rgtorique
_.,
Science of translation Science de la traduction
,.. .,.
Sense continuity Continuit de sens
... _..: .,...:
Situationality Situationalit
,.,: ,,.. .,.
Situation of utterance Situation dnonc
,.,. ,,.. .,.
Speech act Acte de langage, de parole
_.s. _...
Speech act theory Thorie des actes de langage
.,.s. ,.... .,..
Subjective Subjectif(-ve)
_:: _.,.,. .
Substitution Substitution
,.,, ,.,:..
Supplicatory text Texte supplicatoire
_..: . _..,:
Symbolic Symbolique
_.
Systematization Systmatisation
,,:: _,,.. ,,..:
Terminology La Terminologie
......:
Text grammar La grammaire de texte
.. ,.
Text-Linguistics Linguistique de texte
..,,.. ..
Textology Textologie
.. ,..
Textual science Science du texte
.. ,..
Textuality (textness) Textualit
.,..... ,...
Texture Textualit
,... .,.....
Text-pragmatics Pragmatique de texte
.. ..,:.,,
Text-types Types (genres) de textes
...| ,... _,.
Thematic structure Structure thmatique
.,.,.,: .,.,. .,,.
Vocative function Fonction vocative
.,....:.. ..,.,.

V VI I. . R Re ef fe er re en nc ce es s
1. Austin, L.L.(1962). How to do things with words. London: Cambridge Univ. Press.
2. Austin, L.L. (1970a ). Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Baker, Mona.(1992).In other works. A coursebook on translation. London: Routlege
4. Beene,L. and others. (1985). Text Linguistics and Composition: Research and Practical
Connections. EDRS Document.
5. Barnwell, K.G.L. (1980). Introduction to Semantic and Translation. High Wycombe:
Summer Institute of Linguistics.
6. Bell, Roger.T. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London:
Longman.
7. Buher, K. (1934). Die Sprachtheorie. Jena: Fisher. (2nd edn. 1965, Stttgart)
8. Chapman, R. (1973). An Introduction to Literary Stylistics. London: Edward Arnold.
9. Cole, L. & J.L.Morgan. (eds.) (1975).Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York:
Academic Press.
10. De Beaugrande, R. and R. Dressler. (1981). Introduction to Textlinguistics. London
and New York: Longman.
11. Delisle, J. (1980). lAnalyse du discours comme mthode de traduction: initiation la
traduction franaise de textes pragmatiques anglais: thorie et pratique. Ottawa:
University of Ottawa.
12. Enkvist, N.E. (1978b). Coherence, pseudo-coherence, and non-coherence . in: J.Ostman
(ed.) Cohesion and Semantics: Report on Texlinguistics. Abo: The Research Institute of
the Abo Akademi Foundation.
13. Etkind, E.G. (1967). La stylistique compare, base de lart de traduire . Babel. 13. pp.
23-30
14. Firth, J.R.(1957). Papers in Linguistics: 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press.
15. Firth, J.R.(1964). Speech and the Tongues of men. London: Oxford Univ. Press.
16. Firth, J.R.(1968). Selected Papers: 1952-59. F.R. Palmer (ed.) London: Longmans,
Green & co.
17. Flammand, J. (1963). Ecrire et Traduire, sur la voie de la cration. Ottawa: Les Editions
de vermillion.
18. Frawley, W. (1984). Translation; Literary, linguistic and philosophical perspectives. New
York: University of Delaware Press.
19. Grice, H.P. (1975). Smiology. (translated from French). London: Routledge.
20. Guiraud, P. (1975). Smiology. (translated from French). London: Routledge.
21. Gumperz, J.J. & D. Hymes (eds) (1972). Directions in Sociolinguistics. NewYork: Holt
Rinehart & Winston.
22. Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edwart
Arnold.
23. Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the Development of
language. London: Edward Arnold.
24. Halliday, M.A.K. & F.C. Stork. (1972). Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Applied
science. Amsterdam.
25. Hartmann, R.R.K. (1980). Contrastive Textology: Comparative discourse analysis in
applied linguistics. Heidelberg, Groos.
26. Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism and Semiotics (= New Accents). London: Methuen.
27. Hayward, K. & H.C. Wilcoxon. (1994). Connectives in Context . English Teaching
Forum. (July) pp. 20-23.
28. Hohulin, E.L. (1982). Text grammar and translation . In R.B. Noss(ed.) pp. 64-68.
29. Hohulin, E.L. (1982). Functional grammar in translation . In: R.B. Noss (ed.) pp.
101-122.
30. Holmes, J.S.(ed.) (1970). The Nature of Translation. The Hague: Mouton.
31. Hurford, J.R. & B. Heasley. (1983). Semantics: A coursebook: Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
32. Hughes, R. & A.P. Duhamel (1962). Rhetoric: Principles and usage. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
33. Hymes, D.H. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In: J.J.
Gumperz and D.H. Hymes (eds.) pp. 35-71)
34. Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and Poetics . In: T.A. Sebeok (ed.) 350-377.
35. Kloepfer, R. (1967). Die theorie der literarischen bersetzing. Romanish-deutscher
sprachraum. Munich.
36. Leech, G. (1974,1981) Semantics; The study of meaning. Hardmondsworth: Penguin.
37. Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Levy, J. (1969). Die Literarische .bersetzung. Frankfurt, Athenaum.
39. Lyons, J. (1981). Language, Meaning and Context. Fontana Paperbacks.
40. Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages . In: C.K.
Ogden & I.A. Richards (1946) pp. 296-336.
41. Malinowski, B. (1935). An ethnographical theory of Language and some practical
corollaries . In: B. Malinowski, Coral gardens and their magic. Vol. II. London.
42. Mounin, G. (1963, 1976). Problmes thoriques de la traduction . Paris: Guallimard.
43. Newmark, P.(1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
44. Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of translation. London: Prentice-Hall.
45. Nida, E. & C.R. Taber. (1974). The theory and Practice of translation. Leiden: Brill.
46. Nida, E. (1979). Translating means communicating: A sociolinguistic theory of
translation. I. BT. 30 / 1. (January). pp. 101-107
47. Ogden, C.K. & I.A. Richards. (1946). The Meaning of Meaning. (8th edn.) London
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
48. Pergnier, M. (1978). Les Fondements Sociolinguistiques de la Traduction. Paris: Librairie
Honor Champion.
49. Picken, C. (1989). The translators Handbook. 2nd. Edition. Aslib and contributors.
50. Quirk, R., S. Greebaum, G, Leech & J. Svartvik (1973). Grammar of contemporary
English. Harlow: Longman.
51. Rabassa, G. (1984). The Silk Purse Business: A Translators conflicting
responsibilities . In: W. Frawley (ed.) pp. 35-40
52. Reiss, K. (1976). How to teach translation: Problems and perspectives . BT. 27 / 3.
(July) pp. 329-340.
53. Reiss, K. (1981). Understanding a text from the translators point of view . BT. 32 / 1
(January) pp. 124-134.
54. Rubin, J. & R. Shuy (1973). Language Planning: Current Issues and research.
Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
55. Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London:
Cambridge University Press.
56. Searle, J.R. (1971) The philosophy of language. London: Oxford Univ. Press.
57. Searle, J.R. (1975a ). Indirect Speech Acts . In : L. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds.) pp. 27-
43.
58. Searle, J.R. (1976). The classification of illocutionary acts . Language in Society. 5. pp.
1-24.
59. Searle, J.R., F. Kiefer & M. Bierwisch (eds.) (1980). Speech Acts Theory and Pragmatics.
Synthese Language Library, Vol. 10. Dordrecht: Reidel.
60. Sebeok, A. (ed.) (1960). style in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
61. Sancev,L. (1970). Traducteurs, semeurs de rves . In: J.S. Holmes (ed.)
62. Thomas , J. (1986). The Police and Social workers. Aldershot hants: Gover publishing
company.
63. Thomson, G. (1982). An Introduction to Implicature for Translators . Notes on
translation 1 (special edition). pp. 1-82.
64. Dijk, Teun Van (1977a ). Text and Context. London: Longman.
65. Vatcheck, J. (1972). The linguistic theorie of the Prague School . In: Fried (ed.), The
Prague School of Linguistics and Language Teaching. London: Oxford University Press.
pp. 11-28.
66. Wakes, K. (1989). A dictionary of Stylistics. London and New York: Longman.
67. Wittee, S.P. & L/ . Faigley (1981). Coherence, Cohesion and Writing quality .
College Composition and Communication. 22: 189-204.
68. Xin-shan, Ding. (1994). Toward a Text-Centered Approach to Reading . English
Teaching Forum. 34 / 4. (October) pp. 28-30.
69. Yule, G. (1985). The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TABLE DES MATIERES

G GE EN NE ER RA AL L I IN NT TR RO OD DU UC CT TI IO ON N: : 1 1
I I. . I IN NT TR RO OD DU UC CT TI IO ON N 6 6
I II I G GE EN NE ER RA AL L T TR RA AN NS SL LA AT TI IO ON N T TH HE EO OR RY Y- -- - T TE EX XT TU UA AL L I IS SS SU UE ES S 7 7
2.1 2.1 T TE EX XT T- -L LI IN NG GU UI IS ST TI IC CS S A AN ND D T TR RA AN NS SL LA AT TI IO ON N 7 7
2.1.1 2.1.1 C CO OH HE ES SI IO ON N A AN ND D T TR RA AN NS SL LA AT TI IO ON N 9 9
2.1.2 2.1.2 C CO OH HE ER RE EN NC CE E A AN ND D T TR RA AN NS SL LA AT TI IO ON N 13 13
2.2 2.2 T TE EX XT T- -P PR RA AG GM MA AT TI IC CS S A AN ND D T TR RA AN NS SL LA AT TI IO ON N 16 16
2.3 2.3. . T TE EX XT T- -T TY YP PE ES S A AN ND D T TR RA AN NS SL LA AT TI IO ON N 23 23
2.3.1 2.3.1 F FU UN NC CT TI IO ON NA AL LI IS SM M, , T TR RA AN NS SL LA AT TI IO ON N A AN ND D T TE EX XT T T TY YP PE ES S 24 24
2.3.2 2.3.2 O ON N L LI IT TE ER RA AR RY Y T TR RA AN NS SL LA AT TI IO ON N 27 27
I II II I. . S SU UM MM MA AT TI IO ON N 30 30
I IV V. . E EN ND DN NO OT TE ES S 33 33
V V. . G GL LO OS SS SA AR RY Y 38 38
V VI I. . R RE EF FE ER RE EN NC CE ES S 46 46